Parry Missile Weapons - too easy?

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Gudiomen

It seems more realistic, but I can't see them being even close to as intricate and unpredictable as a melee attack can be. And that's what it boils down to.

It's a GURPS resolution issue. I'm a DF GM so I'm often comfortable keeping only a "weather eye" on realism, but an idea might be to double or even triple the DA penalties for a ranged attack against other defenses.

So if you do a ranged DA taking only a -2 penalty, the target gets -1 to dodge, but no effect on Parry or Block. But if you take a -4, the target gets -2 to dodge, and -1 to Parry or Block.

Or even require each defense to be targeted with a separate penalty, possibly with the same poor rates of exchange.

[weby]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

You don't need precognition to place a shield between you and a gun. It's not like you have to guess the exact path of the bullet. I've always figured the problem was that the bullet just rips through the shield anyway.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

At some points (but not really all of them) the book seems to indicate that the problem is not being able to block but the ability of the shield to stop the bullet.

Game-mechanically it's extremely difficult to shoot through shields though even with the optional rules.

I am more thinking more force shields and scifi settings.

But basically as written, yes, as written you cannot penetrate a wood shield reliably with an assault rifle (5d damage avg penetration 17.5. Large shield is Dr 9 and 60 hp and according to basic set you need to do 1/4 damage to penetrate=15 thus total 24, thus giving 98.38% probability to stop fully)

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by weby

I am more thinking more force shields and scifi settings.

But basically as written, yes, as written you cannot penetrate a wood shield reliably with an assault rifle (5d damage avg penetration 17.5. Large shield is Dr 9 and 60 hp and according to basic set you need to do 1/4 damage to penetrate=15 thus total 24, thus giving 98.38% probability to stop fully)

Yeah, I've wondered about that too, especially in a sci-fi setting. I mean, why have force-shields if you can't block laser-bolts?

[SuedodeuS]

Because it's so thin, a shield would only give "cover DR" equal to its own DR - HP doesn't play a role. This is mentioned on B408. Although a wall and a door are used as examples of a "thin slab," a shield isn't going to be any thicker than a door so it should follow the same rules.

DR 9 is certainly not something to be scoffed at, however! That's enough to stop most handguns fairly reliably (particularly if used with Armor as Dice), and it gives virtual immunity to most handgun rounds if HP ammo is used. Rifles can still punch through reliably, but with a decent amount of their damage potential stripped off. As has been noted elsewhere, however, DR 9 (and 60 HP, for that matter) seems excessive for a shield, particularly one made of wood - a suit of heavy steel plate armor only gives DR 7! Hopefully this will be fixed in Low-Tech.

[Gudiomen]

Originally Posted by Bruno

It's a GURPS resolution issue.

Yeah, I agree with you here. That's kind of what I wanted to say. On a scale of "no DA" to "DA possible" I think ranged attacks are closer to the first.

I also think it's a conceptual issue, kind of the "spirit to the rules". The way dodge works for long range attacks, is a lot less intentional than melee dodges. So it's more about speed and movement then technique. A melee dodge is very much intentional, so you can be tricked.
You also have a lot less control of your attack, and that means you can't make it do something like a DA.

This is, of course, my take on the rules. RAW seems to agree with that, or use some other rationale to arrive at the same result: no DA for ranged.

That said, I do acknowledge that some degree of deceptiveness and unpredictability might be in order in some cases. I'd probably give more modest bonuses, akin to Counterattack. I find the open-ended nature of the penalties possible with DA to be too effective to really happen at range.

But that's just me.

[weby]

Originally Posted by SuedodeuS

Because it's so thin, a shield would only give "cover DR" equal to its own DR - HP doesn't play a role. This is mentioned on B408. Although a wall and a door are used as examples of a "thin slab," a shield isn't going to be any thicker than a door so it should follow the same rules.

The rules say:
Damage to Shields on B484: "A powerful blow may punch through your shield! The shield acts as cover, with “cover DR” equal to its DR + (HP/4)."

Thus the rules say that if you crouch behind a large shield you are well protected against assault rifles..

[safisher]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Firearms (Dodge, or Parry with exotic precognitive abilities)

That's in MA, but what is the official ability or reflect the beam back at the shooter? Is it in Powers. I can't find it . . .

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by safisher

That's in MA, but what is the official ability or reflect the beam back at the shooter? Is it in Powers. I can't find it . . .

That's DR + Reflection. Or, if your GM allows, IT:DR + Reflection as well.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

That's DR + Reflection. Or, if your GM allows, IT:DR + Reflection as well.

Not when you're doing it by parrying the beam with a lightsaber. I do think I saw a rule for that someplace...maybe in Ultratech?

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Not when you're doing it by parrying the beam with a lightsaber. I do think I saw a rule for that someplace...maybe in Ultratech?

Not in Ultratech. It just mentions that Force Swords can parry.

Retro-Reflective Armor can reflect laser fire back. Reflective Force Shields as well. I don't see anything that allows you to reflect damage back to someone when it doesn't have DR.

Maybe in Ultratech for 3e, but I don't see anything like that in 4e.